The evolution of the eye

[DavidFirth]

Luckily science does not have to convince you of its evidence. The proof convinces people far more qualified than you.

What proof? You don't have any proof.

 

[Revoltingest]

Thank you. I agree.

I think it should also be possible to prove TOE by showing how the DNA changes over time. Since this has been a problem for the TOE it gives me serious doubts about it as a viable theory. It also cannot predict future mutations so that is a problem also.

Science doesn't work quite that way.
Theories about the natural world are never provable (only disprovable).
This is because there will always be the possibility that a current theory
could be replaced by a better (more "useful") one.
So we're left with something less than proof....repeated verification.
It's not about "truth"....just usefulness.

 

[ChristineM]

What proof? You don't have any proof.

I have just shown you, do you want me to read and understand it for you too?

 

[DavidFirth]

I have just shown you, do you want me to read and understand it for you too?

You haven't proved anything except that you think assumption on top of assumption somehow proves something.

Hint: It doesn't prove anything except that scientists love to blow a whole lot of hot air.

 

[DavidFirth]

Science doesn't work quite that way.
Theories about the natural world are never provable (only disprovable).
This is because there will always be the possibility that a current theory
could be replaced by a better (more "useful") one.
So we're left with something less than proof....repeated verification.
It's not about "truth"....just usefulness.

That's not going to cut it for me. I want absolute proof. I have absolute proof in the word and Spirit of God. You can choose to say I don't because I can't prove it in a physically definite way.

 

[ChristineM]

You haven't proved anything except that you think assumption on top of assumption somehow proves something.

Hint: It doesn't prove anything except that scientists love to blow a whole lot of hot air.

I have provided both popular and scientific evidence, you chose to deny and ignore that evidence because it pops your god magic bubble. Which incidentally you have absolutely no evidence for.

Not my problem if you'd prefer a beings age hocuspocus story to observed evidence then chose misrepresentation, lies, hypetbole and ad hominem to justify your bronze age believed to yourself.

And obviously you don't know many scientists or anything about the scientific method.

 

[Revoltingest]

That's not going to cut it for me. I want absolute proof.

Someone once said that you can't always get what you want.

I have absolute proof in the word and Spirit of God. You can choose to say I don't because I can't prove it in a physically definite way.

I'm not going to say it then.

 

[ChristineM]

That's not going to cut it for me. I want absolute proof. I have absolute proof in the word and Spirit of God. You can choose to say I don't because I can't prove it in a physically definite way.

Oh cool, please provide a falsifiable link or citation to proof of god

Oh...

That's correct, you can't prove it, yet you require a million zilion % more proof from other's. I don't know what you feel about that situation, i feel there is considerable hypocrisy being bandied about.

 

[ChristineM]

Thank you. I agree.

I think it should also be possible to prove TOE by showing exactly how and why the DNA changes over time. Since this has been a problem for the TOE it gives me serious doubts about it as a viable theory. It also cannot predict future mutations so that is a problem also.

There's ya problem(s) right there.

The change in dna is subtle, less than 1% change between human and our closest common ancestor, a banana has around 30% the same dna as you. However, that change can and is observed and measured. For example, i have blue eyes, its caused by a change in dna, a mutation that occurred between 6k and 10k years ago in what is now Turkey. Funnily enough, its not a mutation in the dna fragment that is responsible for melanin but in the sequence that sirs next to it in the dna chain. A piece of so called by creationists, junk dna. Interesting that the much criticised junk dna can be responsible dor such an obvious mutation eh?

Yet it seems you want mega differences otherwise god dun it.

And predicting the future? What has this red herring to do with documents past?

 

[DavidFirth]

Someone once said that you can't always get what you want.

Yeah, I think it was Mick Jagger.

 

[12jtartar]

The evolution of the eye from the simplest, light sensitive spot on single cell organisms, to the many variations of the complex eye in higher phyla has been extensively researched from the perspective of both the survival value, and the genetics. The same genes are involved through the whole process.

BBC did a fantastic description of science of this process in evolution in several programs. I may cite these later,

It is an interesting subject from challenges by fundamentalist Christians like those from the Discovery Institute that claim the complexity of the eye cannot be demonstrated by evolution from the simple to the complex.

Here is the first reference:

Source: New perspectives on eye development and the evolution of eyes and photoreceptors. - PubMed - NCBI


New perspectives on eye development and the evolution of eyes and photoreceptors.

Gehring WJ1.
Author information
Abstract
Recent experiments on the genetic control of eye development have opened up a completely new perspective on eye evolution. The demonstration that targeted expression of one and the same master control gene, that is, Pax6 can induce the formation of ectopic eyes in both insects and vertebrates, necessitates a reconsideration of the dogma of a polyphyletic origin of the various eye types in all the animal phyla. The involvement of Pax6 and six1 and six3 genes, which encode highly conserved transcription factors, in the genetic control of eye development in organisms ranging from planarians to humans argues strongly for a monophyletic origin of the eye. Because transcription factors can control the expression of any target gene provided it contains the appropriate gene regulatory elements, the conservation of the genetic control of eye development by Pax6 among all bilaterian animals is not due to functional constraints but a consequence of its evolutionary history. The prototypic eyes postulated by Darwin to consist of two cells only, a photoreceptor and a pigment cell, were accidentally controlled by Pax6 and the subsequent evolution of the various eye types occurred by building onto this original genetic program. A hypothesis of intercalary evolution is proposed that assumes that the eye morphogenetic pathway is progressively modified by intercalation of genes between the master control genes on the top of the hierarchy and the structural genes like rhodopsin at the bottom. The recruitment of novel genes into the eye morphogenetic pathway can be due to at least two different genetic mechanisms, gene duplication and enhancer fusion.In tracing back the evolution of eyes beyond bilaterians, we find highly developed eyes in some box-jellyfish as well as in some Hydrozoans. In Hydrozoans the same orthologous six genes (six1 and six3) are required for eye regeneration as in planarians, and in the box jellyfish Tripedalia a pax B gene, which may be a precursor of Pax6, was found to be expressed in the eyes. In contrast to the adults, which have highly evolved eyes, the Planula larva of Tripedalia has single- celled photoreceptors similar to some unicellular protists. For the origin of photoreceptor cells in metazoa, I propose two hypotheses, one based on cellular differentiation and a more speculative one based on symbiosis. The former assumes that photoreceptor cells originated from a colonial protist in which all the cells were photosensitive and subsequent cellular differentiation to give rise to photoreceptor cells. The symbiont hypothesis, which I call the Russian doll model, assumes that photosensitivity arose first in photosynthetic cyanobacteria that were subsequently taken up into red algae as primary chloroplasts. The red algae in turn were taken up by dinoflagellates as secondary chloroplasts and in some species evolved into the most sophisticated eye organelles, as found, for example, in some dinoflagellates like Erythropsis and Warnovia, which lack chloroplasts. Because dinoflagellates are commonly found as symbionts in cnidarians, the dinoflagellates may have transferred their photoreceptor genes to cnidarians. In cnidarians such as Tripedalia the step from photoreceptor organelles to multicellular eyes has occurred. These two hypotheses, the cellular differentiation and the symbiont hypothesis, are not mutually exclusive and are the subject of further investigations.

© Copyright Original Source

shunyadragon,
I can't put down in words how ridiculous this whole post is. Nothing in it is worthy of debating.
Allow me to mention just one thing that makes all your post impossible!!!
According to evolution, for something to develope some other part, there must be a need for that part. Now think, before any sight was created, how did the animal know there was such a thing as sight???
Let's go a little further, how did the animal that first started to develope the eye, live until it was developed, and could be used, since it took as least hundreds or thousands of years.
Something that proves evolution to br completely preposterous, is: how did two different animals develope along different lines, one male and one female, and develope male and female sex organs. Of course the organs could not be used until completely matured. Exactly how did the reproduce before there organs were matured, which would have taken a vastly longer period of time than any life span. These are a simpleton's logic, pure dereism.
The Bible says that everything will reproduce after it's own kind, Genesis 1:11,12,21,24,25. That means that an animal without sight would reproduce another, without sight. The term is Prestabilism, and this has proven to be the law since creation!!
Never has a farmer planted wheat and got potatoes. Even though there have been billions of human births, we always get human babies. The real truth is; we are degenerating not evolving into a higher form of life. We have devolved so much The we will bring about our own extenction if God does intervene before long!

 

[SkepticThinker]

That's not going to cut it for me. I want absolute proof. I have absolute proof in the word and Spirit of God. You can choose to say I don't because I can't prove it in a physically definite way.

We can never have absolute proof of anything. What you're asking for is unreasonable.

 

[ChristineM]

shunyadragon,
I can't put down in words how ridiculous this whole post is. Nothing in it is worthy of debating.
Allow me to mention just one thing that makes all your post impossible!!!
According to evolution, for something to develope some other part, there must be a need for that part. Now think, before any sight was created, how did the animal know there was such a thing as sight???
Let's go a little further, how did the animal that first started to develope the eye, live until it was developed, and could be used, since it took as least hundreds or thousands of years.
Something that proves evolution to br completely preposterous, is: how did two different animals develope along different lines, one male and one female, and develope male and female sex organs. Of course the organs could not be used until completely matured. Exactly how did the reproduce before there organs were matured, which would have taken a vastly longer period of time than any life span. These are a simpleton's logic, pure dereism.
The Bible says that everything will reproduce after it's own kind, Genesis 1:11,12,21,24,25. That means that an animal without sight would reproduce another, without sight. The term is Prestabilism, and this has proven to be the law since creation!!
Never has a farmer planted wheat and got potatoes. Even though there have been billions of human births, we always get human babies. The real truth is; we are degenerating not evolving into a higher form of life. We have devolved so much The we will bring about our own extenction if God does intervene before long!

What a total load of tosh, misrepresentation based on misunderstanding born of deliberate ignorance. You expect to take your view seriously when you have no clue what you are actually arguing about?

 

[Jose Fly]

The truth is that macro-evolution does not happen.

So we have the community of the world's life scientists who've consistently concluded for over a century that macro-evolution happens. They've collected data about it, written countless papers on it, held conferences on it, written books on it, and even used it to generate new fields of study and make new important discoveries.

OTOH we have "David Firth" in a religious message board asserting that macro-evolution does not happen.

Please explain why anyone should reject the former and instead take the latter as unquestioned gospel.

 

[SkepticThinker]

You haven't proved anything except that you think assumption on top of assumption somehow proves something.

Hint: It doesn't prove anything except that scientists love to blow a whole lot of hot air.

Have you ever met a scientist?

 

[Jose Fly]

None of that is concrete evidence. The truth is that concrete evidence does not exist. All of the evidence presented is assumption based on yet even more and more assumptions.

Can you prove it happened? No. Then you "think" it happened. I "think" it didn't happen. See how that works?

And thus we see why it is pointless to show science to creationists. The question I have is, why did Christine try?

 

[Jose Fly]

That's not going to cut it for me. I want absolute proof.

Please provide absolute proof that the earth orbits the sun.

 

[DavidFirth]

Please provide absolute proof that the earth orbits the sun.

After you provide absolute proof that you have a brain.

 

[Jose Fly]

shunyadragon,
I can't put down in words how ridiculous this whole post is. Nothing in it is worthy of debating.
Allow me to mention just one thing that makes all your post impossible!!!
According to evolution, for something to develope some other part, there must be a need for that part. Now think, before any sight was created, how did the animal know there was such a thing as sight???
Let's go a little further, how did the animal that first started to develope the eye, live until it was developed, and could be used, since it took as least hundreds or thousands of years.
Something that proves evolution to br completely preposterous, is: how did two different animals develope along different lines, one male and one female, and develope male and female sex organs. Of course the organs could not be used until completely matured. Exactly how did the reproduce before there organs were matured, which would have taken a vastly longer period of time than any life span. These are a simpleton's logic, pure dereism.
The Bible says that everything will reproduce after it's own kind, Genesis 1:11,12,21,24,25. That means that an animal without sight would reproduce another, without sight. The term is Prestabilism, and this has proven to be the law since creation!!
Never has a farmer planted wheat and got potatoes. Even though there have been billions of human births, we always get human babies. The real truth is; we are degenerating not evolving into a higher form of life. We have devolved so much The we will bring about our own extenction if God does intervene before long!

Except one little thing.......evolution is a directly and repeatedly observed and documented fact. We see populations evolve all the time, right before our eyes. Every single new trait, ability, genetic sequence, and species that we've ever seen arise has done so via evolution. Conversely, we've not seen a God create anything....not a single thing, ever.

So merely in terms of what we see with our own eyes, evolution is infinitely superior to creationism.

 

[Jose Fly]

After you provide absolute proof that you have a brain.

Oh, I didn't realize you were a child. Never mind.